Goolsby Trucking Co. v. Alexander
| Docket Number: | 2007-WC-00026-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Loss of wage earning capacity - Loaned servant doctrine - Dual employment Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2006 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWARDING PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS Case Number: CV06-273(G)A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | GOOLSBY TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. AND FLEET FORCE |
JOE M. DAVIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | THERESA ALEXANDER | KEITH SANDERS CARLTON | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Workers’ compensation - Loss of wage earning capacity - Loaned servant doctrine - Dual employment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Theresa Alexander was hired to work as a commercial truck driver for Goolsby Trucking Company, Inc. She injured her back when she slipped and fell while walking to her trailer. Alexander filed a petition to controvert with the Commission seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The administrative law judge found that Alexander had suffered a 70% loss of wage earning capacity and further found that Goolsby, as Alexander’s sole employer, was liable in full for Alexander’s workers’ compensation benefits. The ALJ awarded Alexander permanent partial disability benefits in the amount of $153.34 per week for 450 weeks. The ALJ later amended her decision and increased Alexander’s permanent partial disability benefits to $331.06 per week for 450 weeks. The Commission affirmed the order of the ALJ. Goolsby appealed, and the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Goolsby appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Loss of wage earning capacity Goolsby argues that the Commission’s award of permanent partial disability benefits to Alexander should be reversed because the ALJ’s finding that Alexander suffered a 70% loss of wage earning capacity was not supported by substantial evidence. Goolsby argues that because Alexander refused to begin her new job as a mortgage broker in Florida, her expected income from such job was unknown. A conclusion that the employee is disabled rests on a finding that the claimant could not obtain work in similar or other jobs and that the claimant's unemployability was due to the injury in question. If the claimant successfully establishes a disability and the injury suffered is not specifically scheduled by the Workers’ Compensation statute, the claimant’s disability is measured by loss of wage-earning capacity. Goolsby does not dispute the ALJ’s finding that Alexander reasonably sought other employment but argues that because Alexander actually obtained a job as a mortgage broker in Florida, she was required to begin work at this job. The law does not require that a claimant move to another part of the state, but he must cast his eyes further than across the street. Therefore, Alexander was not required to move to Florida in order to satisfy her duty to seek other employment. Any income Alexander could have expected to earn as a mortgage broker in Florida was entirely dependent upon whether she was able to secure a loan; the price of the home for which the loan was needed; and whether the loan was a net or gross loan. Accordingly, Alexander could not have predicted an expected income. Issue 2: Employer Goolsby argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Goolsby was Alexander’s sole employer, because Alexander’s actual employer was Fleet Force and her relationship with Goolsby was that of a loaned servant. Alternatively, Goolsby argues that Alexander was a dual employee of both Goolsby and Fleet, and thus, the liability for Alexander’s benefits should be shared equally between the two companies. Application of the loaned servant rule depends upon the question of whose work is being performed, and if the lender is to escape liability, it must appear that the servant is under the borrower's exclusive control and direction as to the work in progress. Application of the loaned servant doctrine presupposes the initial existence of a general employment relationship between an employer and employee and the act of loaning the employee to a different employer. Thus, in order for the facts of this case to fall within the ambit of the loaned servant doctrine as argued by Goolsby, the record would have to evince a general employment relationship between Alexander and Fleet and a loan of Alexander from Fleet to Goolsby. In finding that Goolsby was Alexander’s employer, the ALJ noted the following facts that contradict the finding of a general employment relationship between Alexander and Fleet: Alexander applied to work for Goolsby at Goolsby’s headquarters, where she met with Goolsby’s representative, Sport Goolsby; she filled out an authorization form allowing Goolsby to investigate her previous employment and driving record, which was witnessed by Pam Goolsby Walker; and she was issued a drug abuse policy statement with Goolsby’s name on it, and Walker signed the statement as the company’s representative. Moreover, Alexander testified that she was never aware of an employment relationship between herself and Fleet. Therefore, the facts of this case do not evince an initial general employment relationship between Alexander and Fleet. With regard to dual employment, the employee may recover compensation from either employer or from both jointly. Therefore, even assuming that Alexander was an employee of both Goolsby and Fleet, she would still be entitled to seek compensation from Goolsby alone. Nonetheless, there is no error in the ALJ’s finding that the relationship among Alexander, Goolsby, and Fleet was not one of dual employment. Although Fleet did pay Goolsby’s base salary, the company was reimbursed weekly by Goolsby for such payment. Sport Goolsby testified that the arrangement between his company and Fleet was merely for the purpose of securing “cheaper” workers’ compensation coverage and health benefits. Moreover, Goolsby controlled Alexander’s truck driving assignments; Fleet had no involvement other than being responsible for Alexander’s salary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
